sustainability-logo

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

Responsible Innovation for a Sustainable Future

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 January 2021) | Viewed by 31471

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Innovation, Management and Marketing, UiS Business School, University of Stavanger; Norway
Interests: responsible innovation, entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial intentions

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
School of Business and Economics in Tromsø, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, PB 6050 Langnes, 9037 Tromsø, Norway
Interests: responsible innovation, sustainability, legitimacy, entrepreneurial university

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Unisinos Business School, Unisinos University, Porto Alegre 90.470-280, Brazil
Interests: Responsible Innovation; Dynamic capabilities; Innovation Ecossistems; Coopetition

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
r University of Exeter, Streatham Court, Rennes Drive, Exeter, EX4 4PU, UK
Interests: innovation management

Special Issue Information

Innovation involves creating value from ideas, but this raises the question of for whom is the value created?  Especially at a time when there is growing recognition of global challenges such as poverty, inequality, aging population or availability of quality healthcare (European Commission, 2012; Lund declaration, 2009), responsible research and innovation (RRI) is suggested as a way to govern innovation development. Principles suggest a broader stakeholder inclusion during the decision-making process, anticipation of societal needs and reflection of concerns (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe, 2012; Owen, Bessant, Heintz, 2013; von Schomberg 2013), which calls for new innovation policies (Kuhlmann and Rip, 2018; Thapa et al. 2019). The failure of institutions to include all layers of society into decision-making processes can lead to a sense of an individual powerlessness. Combined with digital media platforms, this can give rise to fundamental instability, such as the “yellow vests” in France, protests against Brexit, division in the US politics.

While the theoretical development has focused on normative models of RRI, relatively few empirical studies exiss. Further, the literature mostly concerns research projects rather than their implementation at the firm level (Blok and Lemmens, 2015; Da Silva et al. 2019). Despite the recognition of the importance and value of stakeholder-inclusion in the product development process, RRI often involves articulating a process of governance with a strongly normative loading, without clear practical guidelines toward implementation practices (Ribeiro et al, 2017). The principles of RRI direct us to involve the user early in the innovation process, but they lack direction on whom to involve, how to involve them, and at what stage (De Silva et al. 2019). While several researchers claim that RRI is advantageous for businesses (Stahl and Coeckelbergh, 2016; Stahl et al. 2017), other studies point to the negative effects of RRI for innovation processes (Rivard, Lehoux, Miller 2019).

With this background, we follow the argument that responsibility lies with individual actors (Oftedal et al, 2019) and that responsible decisions need to be undertaken at the firm level (Silva, Lefebvre, Oliveira, and Lehoux, 2020). We suggest there is scope for ‘responsible innovation’ (RI) approach which has a more fine-grained focus on the innovation itself (Iakovleva, Oftedal, Bessant, 2019; Silva, Lehoux, Miller, Denis, 2018) and may be more amenable to operationalization.

In this SI we invite theoretical and especially empirical contributions that focus on themes including:

  • The usefulness of the responsible innovation concept
  • How firms organize their entrepreneurial and innovation process to ensure responsible outcomes
  • Responsible commercialization/ implementation of innovation
  • How to incorporate responsibility in the creative process,
  • How to develop responsible business models which ensure that during the innovation process firms anticipate, involve, reflect on stakeholder’s feedbacks
  • Who to include, how to include and at what stage of innovation process?
  • What kind of dynamic capabilities firms are needed for RRI?
  • Assessment tools for RRI, for example to help to self-monitor firm’s behavior
  • The role of policy in helping shape the environment for RRI

Prof. Dr. Tatiana Aleksandrovna Iakovleva
Prof. Dr. Elin Merethe Oftedal
Dr. Luciana Maines
Prof. Dr. John Bessant
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Responsible innovation process
  • User and stakeholder engagement
  • User and stakeholder innovation
  • Responsible research and innovation
  • Business models for responsible innovation
  • Foresight, scenarios and anticipation
  • Assessing current procedures
  • Incorporating user responses
  • Commercialization process
  • RRI capabilities

Published Papers (8 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Editorial

Jump to: Research, Review

6 pages, 197 KiB  
Editorial
Innovating Responsibly—Challenges and Future Research Agendas
by Tatiana Iakovleva, John Bessant, Elin Oftedal and Luciana Maines da Silva
Sustainability 2021, 13(6), 3215; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063215 - 15 Mar 2021
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1673
Abstract
Innovation involves creating value from ideas, but this raises the question of for whom is the value created [...] Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Responsible Innovation for a Sustainable Future)

Research

Jump to: Editorial, Review

27 pages, 709 KiB  
Article
Responsible Innovation in Business: Perceptions, Evaluation Practices and Lessons Learnt
by Agata Gurzawska
Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 1826; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041826 - 8 Feb 2021
Cited by 17 | Viewed by 4753
Abstract
This study derives from the results of the European Union (EU)-funded SATORI (Stakeholders Acting Together on the ethical impact assessment of Research and Innovation) project. It seeks to gain insights about, firstly, integration of the responsible innovation (RI) concept into companies’ practices; and [...] Read more.
This study derives from the results of the European Union (EU)-funded SATORI (Stakeholders Acting Together on the ethical impact assessment of Research and Innovation) project. It seeks to gain insights about, firstly, integration of the responsible innovation (RI) concept into companies’ practices; and secondly, various evaluation approaches to companies’ innovation practices that consider responsibility, ethics and sustainability. Twenty four interviews with companies and business experts were conducted to understand the ways in which companies apply principles, frameworks and evaluation practices related to RI. The results emphasize the confined character of companies’ RI practices in the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainability and ethics. Moreover, the results indicate two main types of RI evaluation and control among companies, namely assessment and guidance. This paper discusses theoretical and practical implications of discrepancies in understanding and evaluating RI for large corporations and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Consequently, new approaches to RI in business are proposed, calling for strategic and responsible innovation management. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Responsible Innovation for a Sustainable Future)
Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 305 KiB  
Article
RRI and Corporate Stakeholder Engagement: The Aquadvantage Salmon Case
by Beniamino Callegari and Olga Mikhailova
Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 1820; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041820 - 8 Feb 2021
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 5408
Abstract
Declining public trust in science and innovation triggered the emergence and development of the responsible research and innovation (RRI) concept among policymakers and academics. Engaging stakeholders in the early phases of innovation processes has been identified as a major driver of inclusive, responsible, [...] Read more.
Declining public trust in science and innovation triggered the emergence and development of the responsible research and innovation (RRI) concept among policymakers and academics. Engaging stakeholders in the early phases of innovation processes has been identified as a major driver of inclusive, responsible, and sustainable development. Firms however have often adopted practices entirely opposite to those being advocated within the RRI framework, namely, reducing external interaction with stakeholders, focusing on exclusive communication with the scientific community and legal authorities while avoiding the social spotlight. We illustrate these practices, their causes and consequences using the case of the Aquadvantage salmon, the first genetically modified (GM) animal approved to petition for the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for human consumption. We find that such practices heighten the risk of social backlash, being undesirable from the perspective of both the organizations involved and society at large. Stakeholder engagement remains necessary in order to gain the minimum social acceptance required for contentious innovative products to enter the market. However, stakeholder engagement must be selective, focused on pragmatic organizations whose aims and interests are sufficiently broad to potentially align with corporate interests. Strategic stakeholder engagement offers a meeting point between the transformative aspirations of RRI framework proponents and legitimate business interests. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Responsible Innovation for a Sustainable Future)
17 pages, 307 KiB  
Article
Changing Role of Users—Innovating Responsibly in Digital Health
by Tatiana Iakovleva, Elin Oftedal and John Bessant
Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 1616; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041616 - 3 Feb 2021
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2418
Abstract
Despite the recognition of the importance of stakeholder inclusion into decisions about new solutions offered to society, responsible innovation (RI) has stalled at the point of articulating a process of governance with a strongly normative loading, without clear practical guidelines toward implementation practices. [...] Read more.
Despite the recognition of the importance of stakeholder inclusion into decisions about new solutions offered to society, responsible innovation (RI) has stalled at the point of articulating a process of governance with a strongly normative loading, without clear practical guidelines toward implementation practices. The principles of RI direct us to involve the user early in the innovation process. However, it lacks direction of how to involve users and stakeholders into this process. In this article, we try to understand how to empower users to become a part of innovation process though empirical cases. Based on 11 cases of firms innovating in digital health and welfare services, we look on firm practices for user integration into their innovation process, as well as how the user’s behavior is changing due to new trends such as availability of information and digitalization of services. We try to explore this question through lenses of responsible innovation in the emerging field of digital healthcare. Our findings indicate that users are not a homogenous group—rather, their willingness to engage in innovative processes are distributed across a spectrum, ranging from informed to involved and, at extreme, to innovative user. Further, we identified signs of user and stakeholder inclusion in all our cases—albeit in different degrees. The most common group of inclusion is with involved users, and firms’ practices varying from sharing reciprocal information with users, to integration through focus groups, testing or collecting a more formative feedbacks from users. Although user inclusion into design space is perceived as important and beneficial for matching with market demands, it is also a time-consuming and costly process. We conclude with debating some policy impacts, pointing to the fact that inclusion is a resource-consuming process especially for small firms and that policy instruments have to be in place in order to secure true inclusion of users into the innovation process. Our article sheds light on RI practices, and we also suggest some avenues for future research to identify more precisely whom to include, when to include and at what stage of the innovation process. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Responsible Innovation for a Sustainable Future)
20 pages, 1446 KiB  
Article
Improvisation as Responsible Innovation in Organizations
by Milena Gojny-Zbierowska and Przemysław Zbierowski
Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 1597; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041597 - 3 Feb 2021
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 3442
Abstract
Improvisation might be seen as a method of responsible innovation in organizations, due to its potential to be more responsive and enable bottom-up initiative. Considering that improvising involves the ability to pivot we argue that enhancing entrepreneurial orientation of existing firms means that [...] Read more.
Improvisation might be seen as a method of responsible innovation in organizations, due to its potential to be more responsive and enable bottom-up initiative. Considering that improvising involves the ability to pivot we argue that enhancing entrepreneurial orientation of existing firms means that their entrepreneurial behaviors can be also displayed in more responsible manner. The paper aims at investigating the influence of improvisation on entrepreneurial orientation (EO). While intuitively improvisation is closely connected to EO, surprisingly, there is very little theoretical and empirical evidence on that relation. The paper closes that gap by empirically investigating the role that improvisation plays in enhancing EO. Building on empirical evidence on the role of improvising in individual entrepreneurship, we use Hmieleski and Corbett’s framework of improvisation as a three-dimensional construct (creativity and bricolage, ability to function and excel under pressure and in stress-filled environments, and spontaneity and persistence) and entrepreneurial orientation as a three-dimensional construct (innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking) to investigate the impact of improvisation on individual components of EO. Using the data from 567 senior managers from medium and large organizations we find that improvisation has moderate effect on entrepreneurial orientation. Importantly, different dimensions of improvisation shape components of EO in different way: Creativity and bricolage have positive impact on innovativeness and proactiveness and ability to function and excel under stress has impact on propensity to take risk. The study has implications for the theory of responsible innovation by highlighting the potential of improvising to generate more responsive and stakeholder-involving and, in consequence, more responsible innovation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Responsible Innovation for a Sustainable Future)
Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 1410 KiB  
Article
Roadmap for Innovators in the Process of Innovation for Development
by Thammarat Koottatep, Krisakorn Sukavejworakit and Thanaphol Virasa
Sustainability 2021, 13(1), 84; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010084 - 23 Dec 2020
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2605
Abstract
This study aims to provide valuable insights into the process of innovation for development. We selected the “Reinvent the Toilet Challenge”, an initiative of the Gates Foundation, with the objective of creating sustainable sanitation solutions for the 2.5 billion people across the globe [...] Read more.
This study aims to provide valuable insights into the process of innovation for development. We selected the “Reinvent the Toilet Challenge”, an initiative of the Gates Foundation, with the objective of creating sustainable sanitation solutions for the 2.5 billion people across the globe who lack access to safe and affordable sanitation. The Naturally Acceptable and Technologically Sustainable (NATS) team at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand was appointed by the Gates Foundation to serve as an innovative fecal sludge management (FSM) hub in Southeast Asia and collaborate with other researchers in the region, as well as with other teams from around the world to develop innovative FSM techniques that can help to solve the world sanitation problem. By gaining insights into how innovators interact with key stakeholders, we can understand the process of innovation for development and the role of innovation brokers in the innovation process, and then suggest a roadmap from the perspective of responsible research and innovation (RRI) to guide innovators, project leaders, industry partners, local government, and policy makers in the process of innovation for development. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Responsible Innovation for a Sustainable Future)
Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 1354 KiB  
Article
Place-Based Directionality of Innovation: Tasmanian Salmon Farming and Responsible Innovation
by Arnt Fløysand, Emil Tomson Lindfors, Stig-Erik Jakobsen and Lars Coenen
Sustainability 2021, 13(1), 62; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010062 - 23 Dec 2020
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 4018
Abstract
The aim of this paper has been to explore, in depth, the place-based conditions enabling and constraining the directionality of responsible innovation in the Tasmanian salmon farming industry, and to discuss how this case can inform the broader literature on directionality of innovations. [...] Read more.
The aim of this paper has been to explore, in depth, the place-based conditions enabling and constraining the directionality of responsible innovation in the Tasmanian salmon farming industry, and to discuss how this case can inform the broader literature on directionality of innovations. Theoretically, we argue that the combination of literature on responsible research and innovation (RRI), regional innovation system (RIS) and discourse theory is a useful starting point for addressing innovation as a territorial complex consisting of a material dimension in terms of technologies and resources, an organizational dimension in terms of innovation systems and regulations, and a discursive dimension in terms of narratives in play. When applying the complex to analyze how place-based conditions have enabled and constrained the directionality of responsible innovation in the Tasmanian salmon industry, the case discerns that the directionality of responsible innovation arises from a rather mature and well-organized regional innovation system, which allows multiple stakeholders to articulate their narratives. Under such circumstances, responsible innovation becomes a multidimensional, interactive, and co-created phenomenon consisting of several dilemmas. Still, although the contextualization of responsible innovation is highlighted, our case study acknowledges that certain “universal” characteristics shine through. By this we mean that context sensitivity must not supersede the fact that place-based responsible innovation is always subject to some generic dynamism: under all circumstances there will be a territorial innovation complex at play. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Responsible Innovation for a Sustainable Future)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Editorial, Research

27 pages, 1705 KiB  
Review
Responsible Innovation in SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review for a Conceptual Model
by Carla Gonzales-Gemio, Claudio Cruz-Cázares and Mary Jane Parmentier
Sustainability 2020, 12(24), 10232; https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410232 - 8 Dec 2020
Cited by 24 | Viewed by 5278
Abstract
Responsible innovation has always been an important issue in discourses addressing the major challenges faced by humankind in terms of natural resource degradation, climate change, economic progress and societal well-being. However, its integration into industry is still in its infancy, and even more [...] Read more.
Responsible innovation has always been an important issue in discourses addressing the major challenges faced by humankind in terms of natural resource degradation, climate change, economic progress and societal well-being. However, its integration into industry is still in its infancy, and even more so when it comes to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The aim of this research is to use a systematic literature review to develop a conceptual model for responsible innovation and its relationship with SME performance, in connection with sustainable innovation and corporate social responsibility practices. A bibliometric analysis of 102 articles collected between 2000 and April 2020 from the Web of Science database was used, in addition to the systematic literature review using the Gephi and NVivo software. The study presents an overview of the articles, authors, and most influential journals and research clusters identified, and provides a solid conceptual framework to be applied in this field and in the context of SMEs. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Responsible Innovation for a Sustainable Future)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop